Comrades, unfortunately I have not been able to take part in
the conference you have arranged, that is, in this conference on
work in the countryside. Hence I shall have to limit myself to
some general, basic considerations, and I am certain that you will
be able gradually to apply these general considerations and
fundamental principles of our policy to the various tasks and
practical questions that come up before you.

The question of our work in the countryside is now, strictly
speaking, the basic question of socialist construction in general,
for insofar as the work among the proletariat and the question of
uniting its forces are concerned, we can safely say that during
the two years of Soviet power communist policy has not only taken
definite shape but has unquestionably achieved lasting results. At
first we had to fight a lack of understanding of the common
interests among the workers, to fight various manifestations of
syndicalism when the workers of some factories or some branches of
industry tended to place their own interests, the interests of
their factory or industry, above the interests of society. We had
to fight a lack of discipline in the new organisation of labour,
and still have to. I believe you all remember the major stages
through which our policy has passed, when, as we promoted more and
more workers to new posts, we gave them an opportunity to
familiarise
themselves with the tasks facing us, with the general mechanism
of government. The organisation of the communist activity of the
proletariat and the entire policy of the Communists have now
acquired a final, lasting form; I am certain that we are on the
right path and that progress along that path is fully ensured.

As regards work in the countryside, the difficulties here are
undoubtedly great, and we gave this question full consideration
at the Eighth Congress of the Party[2] as one of the most
important issues. In the countryside as well as in the towns we
can rely only on the working and exploited people, only on those
who, under capitalism, bore the whole burden of the landowner
and capitalist yoke. Since the time when the conquest of power
by the workers abolished private property and enabled the
peasants to sweep away the power of the landowners at one blow,
they divided up the land and, of course, gave effect to the
fullest equality and thus considerably improved the exploitation
of the soil, raising it to a level above the average. It goes
without saying, however, that we could not achieve everything we
would have wished in this respect, for it would take tremendous
funds to provide each with sufficient seed, livestock and
implements as long as the land is tilled by individual
peasants. Moreover, even if our industry were to achieve
extraordinary progress and increase the production of
agricultural machines, even if we were to imagine all our wishes
fulfilled, it would still be obvious that to supply each small
peasant with sufficient means of production is impossible and
most irrational since it would mean a terrible fragmentation of
resources; only joint, artel, co-operative labour can help us to
emerge from the blind alley in which the imperialist war has
driven us.

In the mass, the peasants, whose economic position under
capitalism made them the most downtrodden, find it hardest of all
to believe in the possibility of sharp changes and
transitions. The peasant's experience of Kolchak, Yudenich, and
Denikin compels him to show especial concern about his gains. All
peasants know that the permanence of their gains is not finally
guaranteed, that their enemy—the landowner—has not yet
been destroyed, but has gone into hiding and is waiting for his
friends, the international capitalist brigands, to come to his
aid. And although international capital is becoming weaker day by
day and our international position has greatly improved in the
recent period, if we soberly weigh all the circumstances, we have
to admit that international capital is still undoubtedly stronger
than we are. It no longer can openly wage war against us—its
wings have already been clipped. Indeed, all these gentlemen in
the European bourgeois press have latterly begun to say,
“You are likely to get bogged down in Russia, perhaps it is
better to make peace with her.”That is the way it always
is—when the enemy is beaten, he begins talking peace. Time
and again we have told these gentlemen, the imperialists of
Europe, that we agree to make peace, but they continued to dream
of enslaving Russia. Now they realise that their dreams are not
fated to come true.

The international millionaires and multimillionaires are
still stronger than we are. And the peasants see perfectly well
that the attempts to seize power by Yudenich, Kolchak, and Denikin
were financed by the imperialists of Europe and America. And the
mass of the peasants know very well what the slightest weakness
will cost them. The vivid memory of the rule of the landowners and
capitalists makes the peasants reliable supporters of Soviet
power. With each passing month Soviet power becomes more stable
and there is growing political consciousness among the peasants
who formerly laboured and were exploited and who themselves
experienced the full weight of the landowner and capitalist
yoke.

Things, of course, are different with the kulaks, with those
who hired workers, made money by usury, and enriched themselves at
the expense of the labour of others. Most of these side with the
capitalists and are opposed to the revolution that has taken
place. We must clearly realise that we still have a long and
stubborn fight to wage against this group of peasants. Between the
peasants who shouldered the full load of the landowner and
capitalist yoke and those who exploited others there is, however,
a mass of middle peasants. Here lies our most difficult
task. Socialists have always pointed out that the transition to
socialism will raise this difficult problem—the attitude of
the working class to the middle peasantry. Here it is to be
expected that Communists, more than anyone else, will show a
serious understanding and intelligent approach to this complicated
and difficult task, and will not try to solve it at one
stroke.

The middle peasants are undoubtedly accustomed to farming
each for himself. They are peasant proprietors, and although they
have no land as yet, although private property in land has been
abolished, they remain proprietors, primarily because this group
of peasants remain in possession of food products. The middle
peasant produces more food than he needs for himself, and since he
has surplus grain he becomes the exploiter of the hungry
worker. Herein lies the main task and the main contradiction. The
peasant as a working man, as a man who lives by his own labour, as
one who has borne the yoke of capitalism, sides with the
worker. But the peasant as a proprietor with a surplus of grain is
accustomed to regarding it as his property which he can sell
freely. Anyone who sells grain surpluses in a hunger-ridden
country becomes a profiteer, an exploiter, because the starving
man will give everything he has for bread. It is here that the
biggest and hardest battle has to be fought, a battle which
demands of all of us representatives of Soviet power, and
especially the Communists working in the countryside, the greatest
attention and most serious thought to the issue in hand and the
way to approach it.

We have always said that we do not seek to force socialism
on the middle peasant, and the Eighth Party Congress fully
confirmed this. The election of Comrade Kalinin as Chairman of the
All-Russia Central Executive Committee was prompted by the need to
build the closest of bonds between Soviet power and the
peasantry. Thanks to Comrade Kalinin our work in the countryside
has gained considerable momentum. The peasant is now undoubtedly
in a position to keep in closer contact with the Soviet government
through Comrade Kalinin, who represents the supreme authority of
the Soviet Republic. In this way we said in effect to the middle
peasant: “There can be no question of forcibly imposing
socialism on anyone.”But we must make him understand this,
we must know how to tell him this in a language the peasant
understands best of all. Here we must rely only on the force of
example, successfully organised socialised farming. To give an
example of artel, co-operative labour we must first achieve
success in organising such farming ourselves. In these past two
years the movement to set up agricultural communes and
co-operatives has acquired tremendous scope. Looking at things
soberly, however, we must say that a great many of the comrades
who tackled the organisation of communes started to farm without
sufficient knowledge of the economic conditions of peasant
life. Undue haste and wrong approach to the question led to a
tremendous number of mistakes which have had to be rectified. Time
and again the old exploiters, former landowners, wormed their way
into state farms. They no longer dominate there, but they have not
been eliminated. It is necessary either to squeeze them out or put
them under the control of the proletariat.

This is a task that confronts us in all spheres of life. You
have heard of the series of brilliant victories won by the Red
Army. There are tens of thousands of old colonels and officers of
other ranks in that army and if we had not accepted them in our
service and made them serve us, we could not have created an army,
And despite the treachery of some military specialists, we have
defeated Kolchak and Yudenich, and are winning on all fronts. The
reason for this is the existence of communist cells in the Red
Army; they conduct propaganda and agitation carrying a tremendous
impact, and thanks to them the small number of old officers find
themselves in such an environment, under such a tremendous
pressure from the Communists, that the majority of them are unable
to break out of the communist organisation and propaganda with
which we have surrounded them.

Communism cannot be built without knowledge, technique, and
culture, and this knowledge is in possession of bourgeois
specialists. Most of them do not sympathise with Soviet power, yet
without them we cannot build communism. They must be surrounded
with an atmosphere of comradeship, a spirit of communist work, and
won over to the side of the workers' and peasants' government.

Among the peasants there have been frequent manifestations
of extreme distrust and resentment of state farms, even complete
rejection of them; we do not want state farms, they say, for the
old exploiters are to be found there. We have told them—if
you are unable to organise farming along new lines yourselves, you
have to employ the services of old specialists; otherwise there is
no way out of poverty. We shall weed out old experts who violate
the decisions of the Soviet government as ruthlessly as we do in
the Red Army; the struggle goes on, and it is a struggle without
mercy. But we shall force the majority of the experts to work as
we want them to.

This is a difficult, complex task, a task that cannot be
solved at one blow. Here conscious working-class discipline and
closer contact with the peasants are needed. The peasants must be
shown that we are not blind to any of the abuses on the state
farms, but at the same time we tell them that scientists and
technicians must be enlisted in the service of socialised farming,
for small-scale farming will not bring deliverance from want. And
we shall do what we are doing in the Red Army—we may be
beaten a hundred times, but the hundred-and-first we defeat all
our enemies. But to do this, work in the countryside must proceed
by joint efforts, smoothly, in the same strict, orderly way as it
has proceeded in the Red Army and as it is proceeding in other
fields of economy. We shall slowly and steadily prove to the
peasants the superiority of socialised farming.

This is the struggle we must wage on the state farms, this
is where the difficulty of transition to socialism lies, and it is
thus that Soviet power can be really and finally
consolidated. When the majority of the middle peasants come to see
that unless they ally themselves with the workers they are helping
Kolchak and Yudenich, that in all the world only the capitalists
remain with them—the capitalists who hate Soviet Russia and
for years to come will repeat their attempts to restore their
power—even the most backward middle peasants will realise
that either they must forge ahead in alliance with the
revolutionary workers toward complete emancipation or, if they
vacillate even slightly, the enemy, the old capitalist exploiter,
will gain the upper hand. Victory over Denikin is not enough to
destroy the capitalists once and for all. This is something we all
must realise. We know full well that they will try time and again
to throw the noose around Soviet Russia's neck. Hence the peasant
has no choice; he must help the workers, for the slightest
hesitation will bring victory to the landowners and
capitalists. Our primary, basic task is to help the peasants
understand this. The peasant who lives by his own labour is a
loyal ally of Soviet power, and the worker regards such a peasant
as his equal, the workers' government does everything it can for
him, indeed there is no sacrifice the workers' and peasants'
government is not ready to make to satisfy the needs of such a
peasant.

But the peasant who makes use of the surplus grain he
possesses to exploit others is our enemy. To satisfy the basic
needs of a hungry country is a duty to the state. Yet far from all
peasants realise that freedom to trade in grain is a crime against
the state. “I have raised this grain, it is my product, and
I have a right to do business with it,”the peasant reasons
out of habit, as he used to. But we say this is a crime against
the state. Freedom to trade in grain means enriching oneself by
means of this grain, i.e., a return to the old way of life, to
capitalism, and this we shall not allow, this we shall fight
against at all costs.

In the transition period we shall carry out state purchases
of grain and requisition grain surpluses. We know that only in
this way shall we be able to do away with want and hunger. The
vast majority of the workers suffer hardship because of the
incorrect distribution of grain; to distribute it properly, the
peasants must deliver their quotas to the state as assessed,
exactly, conscientiously, and without fail. Here Soviet power can
make no concessions. This is not a matter of the workers'
government fighting the peasants, but an issue involving the very
existence of socialism, the existence of Soviet power. Today we
cannot give the peasants any goods, because there is a shortage of
fuel and railway traffic is being held up. We must start with the
peasants lending the workers grain at fixed prices, not at
profiteering prices, so that the workers can revive
production. Every peasant will agree to this if it is a question
of an individual worker dying from starvation before his eyes. But
when millions of workers are in question, they do not understand
this and the old habits of profiteering gain the upper hand.

Prolonged and persistent struggle against such habits,
agitation and propaganda, explanatory work, checking up on what
has been done—these are the components of our policy toward
the peasantry.

We must render every support to the working peasant, treat
him as an equal, without the slightest attempt to impose anything
on him by force—that is our first task. Our second task is
to wage an unswerving struggle against profiteering, huckstering,
ruination.

When we began to build the Red Army, we had only separate,
scattered groups of guerrillas to start with. Lack of discipline
and unity resulted in many unnecessary sacrifices, but we
overcame these difficulties and built up a Red Army millions
strong in place of the guerrilla detachments. If we were able to
do this in the brief period of two years, and in a sphere as
difficult and hazardous as the army, we are all the more certain
that we can achieve similar results in all spheres of economic
endeavour.

I am certain that although this problem of the proper
attitude of the workers to the peasantry and of the correct food
policy is one of the most difficult, we shall solve it and win a
victory in this field such as we have won at the front.

Endnotes

[1]
The First All-Russia Conference on Party Work in the
Countryside was held from November 16 to November 19, 1919,
in Moscow.

Representatives of all gubernia and regional
Party Committees (except Orenburg, Urals, Don, Orel, Voronezh,
Astrakhan and Archangel) and from many uyezd and some volost Party
Committees attended the Conference. The Conference was convened
for the purpose of pooling experience of Party work in the
countryside and for working out practical measures for its
improvement. The agenda of the Conference was the following:
reports by local Party organisations, report on organisational
questions, work among peasant women and the peasant youth,
cultural and educational work in the countryside, a newspaper for
peasants, publishing literature for the countryside, Party Week in
the countryside, and others.

The Conference approved the proposal
submitted by the C.C., R.S.P.(B.) Rural Department to muster Party
forces for work among the peasants, and also adopted, with some
amendments, a draft instruction for work in the countryside. The
Conference pointed out the necessity of drawing women into all
spheres of state organisation, and of drawing peasant youths into
the All-Russia Communist Youth League. The Conference passed a
decision to hold a Party Week in the countryside, and approved of
the practice of convening non-party conferences.

On the first day the Conference adopted a
decision to ask Lenin to take part in the Conference. Lenin made a
speech at the Conference on November 18, in which he congratulated
the delegates on the occasion of the liberation of Kursk by the
Red Army.

[2]
The Eighth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) was held March
18-23,1919 in Moscow. One of the most important questions
discussed at the Congress was the attitude towards the middle
peasants. In all his speeches and particularly in his report on
work in the countryside, Lenin explained the Party's new policy in
relation to the middle peasants passing from the policy of
neutralising the middle peasants to one of firm alliance with
them, while relying on the poor peasants and carrying the struggle
against the kulaks, and preserving the leading role of the
proletariat in that alliance. That slogan had been advanced by
Lenin in November 1918. The Congress adopted a “Resolution
on the Attitude Towards the Middle Peasants”written by
Lenin. Lenin's policy helped to strengthen the military and
political alliance of the working class and the peasantry, and
played a decisive role in achieving victory over the
interventionists and whiteguards, and later on in building
socialism by the joint efforts of workers and peasants.